Here we go again, another question on Article 3(b) referred to the CJEU, this time via Georgetown University (and others) - with yet another vaccine patent (referral here).
The question referred is the same as question 6 in the Medeva vaccine reference (reported here) on Article 3(b).
Specifically:
Does the SPC Regulation and, in particular, Article 3(b), permit the grant of a Supplementary Protection Certificate for a single active ingredient or combination of active ingredients where:
(a) a basic patent in force protects the single active ingredient or combination of active ingredients within the meaning of Article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation; and
(b) a medicinal product containing the single active ingredient or combination of active ingredients together with one or more active ingredients is the subject of a valid authorisation granted in accordance with Directive 2001/83/EC or 2001/82/EC which is the first marketing authorisation that places the single active ingredient or combination of active ingredients on the market?
The question referred is the same as question 6 in the Medeva vaccine reference (reported here) on Article 3(b).
Specifically:
Does the SPC Regulation and, in particular, Article 3(b), permit the grant of a Supplementary Protection Certificate for a single active ingredient or combination of active ingredients where:
(a) a basic patent in force protects the single active ingredient or combination of active ingredients within the meaning of Article 3(a) of the SPC Regulation; and
(b) a medicinal product containing the single active ingredient or combination of active ingredients together with one or more active ingredients is the subject of a valid authorisation granted in accordance with Directive 2001/83/EC or 2001/82/EC which is the first marketing authorisation that places the single active ingredient or combination of active ingredients on the market?
Chastened that IPKAT posted this information before us, the SPC blog raises a weekend glass to that team!
No comments:
Post a Comment